With the first 757s almost reaching 25 years old, I started to think witch airplane will replace them?? I guess the closest ones are B737-900ER (Boeing side) and A321-200 (Airbus side)... Although, this ones have limited range...

The 737RS is likely to include a replacement for the 757-200. A replacement for the 757-300 may or may not be included in the family, as the market for the 757-300 was small to begin with. The 787-3 may work out to be a replacement for the 757-300 for some airlines.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2):The 737RS is likely to include a replacement for the 757-200. A replacement for the 757-300 may or may not be included in the family, as the market for the 757-300 was small to begin with. The 787-3 may work out to be a replacement for the 757-300 for some airlines.

i think you are right, the 737RS will definately have a 757-200 replacement, with just the american carriers they would make their money not to mention the rest of the world, the 753 i think is replaced by the 783, which would be useful for airlines doing trans atlantic routes on the 757's. But who knows maybe they will make a special 737RS like they did for the 757-300 and 767-400

I just hope the replacement(s) are wider than today's narrow bodies, but not wider enough for the carriers to shove another seat in.
Bring back DC-8 type seats, meaning no supports where your feet belong. They mounted at the aisle and wall. That was a comfortable airplane, even in Coach.

I looked at how many passengers a 787-3, 737-900ER, and A321-200 could seat and their range.
Aircraft: Range: Seats:
757-200: w/winglets: 4,100 miles around 200 passengers
with out winglets: 3,900 miles
757-300: 3,467 miles around 243 passengers

787-3: 2,500-3,050 miles around 290-330 passengers
737-900ER: 2,700 miles around 215 passengers
A321-200: 3,000 miles around 220 passengers

787-3: 2,500-3,050 miles around 290-330 passengers
737-900ER: 2,700 miles around 215 passengers
A321-200: 3,000 miles around 220 passengers

Thats a serious loss in distance per seat. Isn't CO haveing issues wiht needing tech stops on there B752s when returning from Europe? It seems that thre aren't really all that many aircraft that can replace a B752 on long thin routes accross the pond.

Mark

I Love ONT and SNA, the good So Cal Airports! URL Removed as required by mod

757-200s doing trans-Atlantic services is a relatively recent thing, driven mostly by the US legacy carriers trying to shore-up revenue against the LCCs. I am not sure the demand for such a plane will be there in the long-term, but perhaps it will.

If so, then I can see a 200-seater (in two classes) with a range of around 3500-4000nm being part of the 737RS program. I expect Boeing will do a 200-seater with 3000nm range for transcon and Hawai'i routes, so a 4000nm "ER" model probably wouldn't be too hard.

Quoting Thering (Reply 6):The 787-3 is the same size of the 787-8 but with more pax capacity??

Right. They actually have the same floor space and same maximum capacity, but the 787-8 is designed for long routes where you usually have three-class floorplans and a slightly roomier coach section. 787-3 is designed for much shorter, primarily two-class, domestic operations so in the real world the 787-3 will have more people per flight.

Quoting Mark5388916 (Reply 7):Thats a serious loss in distance per seat. Isn't CO haveing issues wiht needing tech stops on there B752s when returning from Europe? It seems that thre aren't really all that many aircraft that can replace a B752 on long thin routes accross the pond.

No, CO is having no such problem........where do you get this nonsense from? On very rare occassions, flights have made a quick fuel stop in Gander or St Johns, generally on days when there are weather and ATC issues affecting the EWR area.

Why not do some research or check on the info that you write before posting?

------------------------

The 739ER and the most capable versions of the A321 can fly about 90% of the missions currently flown by the 752....the big exception being transatlantic flights. The 752 works well on thin transatlantic routes, and most expect that the replacements developed for the 737 and A32X will include variants capable of flying 200 pax on routes up to 4000nm.

The primary market for the 757 was destroyed by the 737NG. The 757 was one of a few narrowbodies that could operate transcon routes, so it was purchased for that intent. It could also easily operate midcon routes. This was a big market and allowed it to sell well in the United States.

However Boeing has switched to more of an emphasis on point to point routes. The 737 is great for that because it can pretty much fly between any two cities in the United States. This decreased the emphasis on hubs for transcon routes as more nonstops were offered especially on airlines like Southwest, Alaska and Airtran. The need for larger hubs decreased and frequency went up with smaller planes. Larger orders for the 752 disappeared after the 737NG debuted.

The 757 has found a home operating longer flights between the US and Europe, however only about 5% of the 757s flying operate on flights longer than a 739ER or 739 could operate. With the 739ER having a similar seat capacity, the 757 is pretty close to obsolete. Sure there is a small market for routes that are best suited for the 757, but this is too small for Boeing to care about. When Boeing creates a new model they want to sell more than 50 planes especially now. The 753 and 764 were exceptions. Nowadays Boeing wants to go after bigger markets. There is a market between the 739ER and 783, but Boeing thinks that it is small enough not to warrant a plane. The airlines thought so too when they stopped ordering the 757.

If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2):The 737RS is likely to include a replacement for the 757-200. A replacement for the 757-300 may or may not be included in the family, as the market for the 757-300 was small to begin with. The 787-3 may work out to be a replacement for the 757-300 for some airlines.

There will be a 180 seater and a 230 seater. Both have a range target equivalent to the 767-200ER.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):There will be a 180 seater and a 230 seater (737RS). Both have a range target equivalent to the 767-200ER.

I wonder if such a plane is really needed. CO flies a 175-seat international-config two class 757-200, but that's about it off the top of my head. Their 757-300s are domestic birds, but you could probably get 212 replacing First with BusinessFirst. And in a true three class config, ala United's p.s. 752s, you'd be looking at around 100 seats (taking into account a hard product superior to what UA offers now) and I am not sure the premium is there to drive that service on a long-term basis.

And even if you do find it, what about airport slots and overwater ATC? Adding hundreds of new international flights between existing and new city pairs just increases the loads on either end, Can airports open enough slots at peak desirable departure and arrival times? Or will the narrowbodies squeeze out the widebodies? The Y1-200 gets the "top slot" because you can tailor capacity to the highest fares, and the 787-8 gets a less desirable slot because the lower CASM allows you to fill it with cheaper fares for folks who don't mind leaving at 11pm or arriving at 4am.